I had a tritium front post and rear sight put on my AR Comp. I love em. Don't know who they were made by but they were installed at Gunsite when I was having other work done. Maybe someone else will know the manufacture. I will be getting them installed on my wife's lightweight AR.

I installed a Trijicon set on my Bush Shorty carbine. If I had it to do over again, I'd have probably just installed the front sight. The sight plane depth of field is such that you can't focus on the front and rear sights. The rear only appear as blurs.

The front is clear and easily sighted.

Actually, since I never contemplate using my iron sights at night, probably won't ever be in a gunbattle, I'd probably just not buy 'em.

Take Walter's advice and just get the front sight. I bought just the front sight from Hesco/meprolight and I'm very happy with it. The distance between the front and rear sight is so great, that you cannot focus properly. By using the front sight only, your eye will naturally center it inside the rear aperature.

Bolth Meprolight and Trijicon make quality sights, I will agree with the post about getting the front sight only but if you want you could probably get just the rear from bolth manufacturers. One thing I will say is you should probably avoid the Ashley rear sight, bolth the large and small apeture are on the same plane and while this is good for daylight shooting, with night sights the tritium lamp is below the top of the post and this will cause you to raise the muzzle with the Ashley rear sight. This is why the issue rear sight leaf has the apetures on a slightly different plane. I realize this is a bit confusing and if need be I will try to explain it better.

hi jake,
with all due respect, you are mistaken. the reason for two different aperture planes on the military rear sight has nothing to do with proper alignment of a tritium insert as you suggest. furthermore, your commentary runs with an implicit assumption that the tritium lamps on a trijicon or mepro ar15 front sight are flush with the top of the post. they are not.

this puts both the trijicon and mepro systems at a marked disadvantage when compared to the ashley system. keep in mind that the tritium sight posts from trijicon and mepro are not meant to function as anything but standard front sight posts. when you are in low light, you will in effect "raise your muzzle" because your eyes will naturally center the tritium within the ghost ring when firing under stress.

the ashley sights work with the understanding that when you put a round front sight within a ghost ring, your eyes will naturally center the dot w/in the ring. that is why the correct sight picture for close in targets is centering the dot on what you aim to hit. when you shoot in low light, only the ashley sight will afford you the same sight picture, b/c the tritium insert will be centered in the ghost ring- the same way it was during the day. you cannot achieve this with the mepro or trijicon sights. as far as more precise shots are concerned, the trijicon and mepro sights will force you to "estimate" the top of the post just as the ashley would. so that would mean that during night shooting, the trijicon/mepro setups aren't better at anything, and worse in the area of close range shots.

getting back to the rear sight, again, the principle behind the split planes on the issue rear sight had nothing to do with tritium sight use. the different planes were designed to work in conjunction with the different aperture sizes. the switch to the smaller aperture was expected to occur with more difficult shots beyond 200 meters, which is why the plane shift was integrated. to say that the ashley rear sight is causing the muzzle to rise is mistaken. in low light, you should be using the large rear aperture to allow more light to pass- the difference between an issue large aperture and an ashley large aperture is minute, and as far as plane shifting issues go, the difference is zero because they shouldn't come into play.

the ashley sights are designed for optimum performance at ranges up to 250 yds (whether or not engaging targets beyond 250 yds at night using your tritium insert is smart is a discussion that should be saved for a different thread). the small aperture is for zeroing the sight and for precision shooting, and is not intended as the primary aperture when used with the ashley express front sight. hope this clears things up.

skdtac, sorry for the confusion, I was afraid this would happen. When I posted my reply I was tired and was not explaining things clearly but I think you misunderstand what I tried to say. If you look again you will see I said "with night sights the tritium lamp is below the top of the post". As best I can remember, my military manuals tell me this is why the standard A2 rear sight leaf has the small apeture and the large apeture on a slightly different vertical plane. The large apeture is for low light, if your pupil dialates to a diameter larger than the sight apeture you can not see through it. In poor light the pupil opens to allow enough light in to see clearly, if the apeture is smaller than your pupil you cannot receive enough light through it to see. Because the large apeture was originally intended as a low light sight it was bored on a lower plane to correspond to the lower position of the tritium lamp in the front sight post. You said much the same in your post and better than I did the first time through.
I have nothing against the Ashley sights in general, I just don't believe it is the best tool for this job. The Ashley sight has a wider front post and the rounded top doesn't give as precise aiming point for smaller or farther targets. If used as you describe I don't doubt it will do exactly what you say, but it lacks (at least a little) the precision of the standard front sight profile. This may well be of little signifigance, in practical terms, but I am not willing to spend the money to find out. Part of my reasoning for avoiding the Ashley sights is that I would not be allowed to use them on my issue M-16 but I can get away with using the Trijicon front sight. I say this to let you guys know why I have come to the conclusions I explain. If your circumstances differ, as I'm sure they do, your decision might well be different.
I just realized that my marksmanship manual is an older one and the discussion of the rear sight apeture might be explained in a different manner in the newer one. Even if the newer manual talks about using the large apeture for close in moving targets and explains the plane shift as a better match a short range zero it still compensates for the lower position of the tritium lamp in the front sight. I want to stress that my recollection from my old army marksmanship manual might well be faulty. I will try to dig it out when I get home but it may take days to find. Anyone else have access to the same info? Does this clear things up any?

Why not an aimpoint, trijicon reflex, or c-more...with my aimpoint my low light target aquisition is FAR better than looking thru a peep...if you have a flattop you can get an arms swan with a drop rear site...leave the front alone , and mount the aimpoint or whatever on the same plane as your your current sites...in low light it pays to have both eyes scanning

hi jake,
six of one, half a dozen of the other. i think we understand each other. the way your first email was worded it sounded like the ashleys were a mistake. the ashley does what it's designed to do very well- in fact no other iron sight system does it better. but it isn't designed for camp perry, its designed for dynamic shooting under less-than-ideal circumstances, which would include your friendly neighborhood firefight every now and then.

mongrel66,
the aimpoint is a great system, but people who like iron sights like them for their simplicity and robustness. you can't break an iron sighting system as easily as you can a red dot system. and i hope you don't shoot your iron sights with one eye closed... your comment seems to suggest that scanning with both eyes is only for red dot optics

no ...i shoot both eyes closed : ) ...i have an aimpoint and iron sights...but i dont have to focus on the front sight post with a red dot..my eyes can continue to scan AND aquire targets..rather than shifting focus...eyes wide open in low light, scanning and shooting, its the beauty of a laser without having to find the little dot on your target
-johnny

Both Iron and Dot gunsights have there pros and cons.
Looking at the Ashley - I would not choose to use them for targets past 200 meters...
The Aim Point extreme systems seem to be robust enough for most situations - yet we know as nothing is perfect, even it can break. So if Irons are not optimal for everything, and scopes are not either... then the only solution is to know your sitation before you jump into it and kit out for the mission specifics. To the lay man - this might mean getting a quick release mount for your Aim Point or those flip up sights if your running a flat top.

I am still waiting for the perfect gunsite.
When I find it - I will let you know.

------------------"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.